- anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Multinationals & Market Strategy for world dominance
by ox 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

If I look at what is coming from yahoo.com these days more than a third of what they transmit to us, is scams & phish. Another third is spam and the last third is valid (or semi valid) email. One cannot help but wonder why Yahoo is unable to stem the abuse from their servers, why Yahoo email services are constantly under attack, constantly being abused. yahoo has good filters, good software but somehow the tech used against Yahoo is powerful. In fact, after looking at the ways that Yahoo is abused, one could say that a lot of money/resources is being spent to destroy Yahoo.com email service. I wonder why? and I wonder who would pay or spend so much money to destroy an email service? Andre

1 0

AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 (redux)
by Ronald F. Guilmette 10 Oct '16

10 Oct '16

Online records seem to suggest that the bogus unregistered AS47860 is and always was just a property of the one and only entity that is providing it with route distribution, i.e. AS43659, D2 International Investment Ukraine, Ltd. http://1whois.ru/world/UA/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2/LLC%20%22Albino%22 (Note the abuse email address.) Note that AS43659, D2 International Investment Ukraine, Ltd. is itself an authorized RIPE NCC LIR: https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/data/ua.d2investukraine.html I have already written to that organization via the following two email addresses and I have received no reply: support(a)etthua.net, d2invest(a)meta.ua Could someone who actually speaks Ukranian please email these crooks and ask them nicely to stop passing routes for unregistered IPv4 space? Regards, rfg P.S. Looking over this document: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-640 It appears to me to be the case that it is possible to become a full fledged dues-paying RIPE NCC LIR member while having never made any sort of pledge whatsoever to refrain from announcing routes to IP space for which the member has no clear rights, either directly, from the relevant RIR, or indirectly from that actual registrant. Is that correct? Forgive me. Even after all this time, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this charade, this farce. RIPE NCC makes, creates, and provides allocations, but then never formally asks any of its members to respect or obey any of those. Is that about the size of it?

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango
by Marilson 06 Oct '16

06 Oct '16

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 Vlad wrote: > Maybe, it is necessary to ask owners AS29632 and AS43659. > Both owners have LIR'a status, and have experience with the RIPE :) Maybe, it is necessary to ask RIPE: 1- Why and how a criminal (Samuel Joel Nirushan aka J. Samuel aka Nirushan Samuel aka Irosha T. Perera aka Nirushan Samuel) ISP owner (etthua.net), where he hosts their companies (D2 International Investments or D2 Investments), although chased by police around the world, continues to use registers and domains with which practices swindle? AS47860 > AS43659 - D2 International Investment Ukraine Ltd. – wanted criminal organization – IP 94.131.14.100 – abuse(at)etthua.net Domain etthua.net without IP address 94.131.14.100 - Don't have a domain name for which to get a record – status allocated unspecified – source RIPE Abuse contact for '94.130.0.0 - 94.131.255.255' is abuse(at)etthua.net http://whois.domaintools.com/etthua.net 2- How much the Registrar would lose if it breaks up the complicity? Marilson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:04 PM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 60, Issue 6 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot (Ronald F. Guilmette) 2. Re: AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot (Vladislav V. Prodan) 3. Re: AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot (Reza Farzan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:06:08 -0700 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot Message-ID: <11223.1475712368(a)segfault.tristatelogic.com> Maybe somebody here knows a guy who knows a guy who actually knows somebody who actually -is- The Internet Police. If not, then I've just wasted a bunch of electrons for nothing. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 03:32:15 +0300 From: "Vladislav V. Prodan" <admin(a)support.od.ua> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot Message-ID: <CAH4R=3ksPJNYT78fD8OFDtKMNiMGp3Yxgg=UCNa7sAScA9a8BA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Maybe, it is necessary to ask owners AS29632 and AS43659. Both owners have LIR'a status, and have experience with the RIPE :) 2016-10-06 3:06 GMT+03:00 Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com>: > > Maybe somebody here knows a guy who knows a guy who actually knows > somebody who actually -is- The Internet Police. > > If not, then I've just wasted a bunch of electrons for nothing. > > -- Vladislav V. Prodan System & Network Administrator support.od.ua

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot
by Reza Farzan 06 Oct '16

06 Oct '16

2 1

AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot
by Ronald F. Guilmette 06 Oct '16

06 Oct '16

Maybe somebody here knows a guy who knows a guy who actually knows somebody who actually -is- The Internet Police. If not, then I've just wasted a bunch of electrons for nothing.

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

On 04/10/16, 9:25 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > Doing what you are doing. And pointing out that the AUP's you are referring > to are written by, at the least, non ethical people and at the most, dishonest > people. Ah, the legal departments of most every ISP and email provider then? In other words, colleagues of most everybody that attends a RIPE meeting, and official policy set by their employers? Interesting set of perceptions there – but not a terms of reference based on which I intend to carry on this discussion any further. --srs

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

I asked about AUP clauses You’re asking me back questions about SMTP and bounce handling That is not an answer to my question, and nor does it follow the socratic method of trying to answer a question by asking more questions, because your line of reasoning is entirely irrelevant to the matter being discussed. On 04/10/16, 9:16 PM, "ox" <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:03:04 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Do yourself a favour. Go review the acceptable use policies of > various large ISPs and email providers. Then come back with a better > informed reply. > It is pointless to continue this discussion, without your being > better informed. not sure how to respond to that, as it is fairly personally directed, but I will try... Just because various large ISPs and email providers says something it does not mean that it has to be accepted by society. Or even that anything and/or everything they say in common is correct, accurate or fair in an open,ethical and just society. a singular and simple example would be Google.com When their servers behave abusively they bounce emails to their clients saying that the sender has an error. ethical? - no. fair? - no no evil? - no. decent? - no. nice? - no. do I have to believe and trust the largest email provider on the planet earth, Google? - no. > > On 04/10/16, 8:56 PM, "ox" <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > > Just to point out, from your tediously long but eloquent reply, > for clarity: > You claim that trying to define Internet Abuse is asinine > behavior. > To that I respond: I do not agree with you. > > I do not think that trying to define Internet Abuse is behaving > like an Ass. > I do think that not defining Internet Abuse, if we are talking > about Internet Abuse, and even if RIPE or an ISP or a Government is > talking about Internet Abuse, is simply stupid. > > Regarding where we were at about the singular definition of > Internet abuse, as it stood: it still stands. - You could reply to > that still open thread? > > The rest of your diatribe: > regarding Hetzner.de - The whole DMCA came about as a result of > "Internet Abuse" - so abuse(a)hetzner.de has to enforce the German > eq of DCMA - as Governments themselves are confused about what this > "Internet Abuse" thing actually is. > > And, copyright etc is only one such example. There are many > examples where other actions/crimes/etc are confused with "Internet > Abuse" in fact, it has become so convenient that everything may > simply be called "Internet Abuse" as it makes it so easy - it makes > abuse@anywhere have to handle everything... > > Regarding status quo: but that does not have to be the case. > > Anyone that cares can agitate, push back and keep on pushing, > pulling (even adding the odd bovanity (in reference to the abuse of > bovines in general) > > anyway, I get your response(s) as well. > > and, for the record, Internet Abuse does not only/simply > apply/relate to carrier grade internet abuse mitigation. - so yet > another example of perspective and point of view... > > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:33:20 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" > > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> > > wrote: > > > > > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes > > > Internet abuse > > > > That is painfully clear to me. > > > > Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the German > > equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally classified as > > internet abuse handling, that is a separate legal process that > > each ISP handles per the advice of their legal team. > > > > It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set best > > practice is evolving in that direction, but that is entirely > > moot in this context. > > > > The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are related > > to issues other than copyright infringement, on which there is > > broad consensus in ISP acceptable use policy and national law. > > > > Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into > > banalities about the minutiae of a catchall definition of > > internet abuse, let alone agricultural metaphors, is, to use > > another such metaphor, asinine. > > > > I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this group > > – not since most every “internet name” in the RIPE region just > > happened to be in the room during an AOB session to remove > > Richard Cox from his role. > > > > There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status quo, > > and a lot of fautuous arguments against it from several people > > with zero background in carrier grade internet abuse mitigation > > (rather than databases, whois, routing and such), and I get > > that. > > > > --srs > > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

Do yourself a favour. Go review the acceptable use policies of various large ISPs and email providers. Then come back with a better informed reply. It is pointless to continue this discussion, without your being better informed. --srs On 04/10/16, 8:56 PM, "ox" <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: Just to point out, from your tediously long but eloquent reply, for clarity: You claim that trying to define Internet Abuse is asinine behavior. To that I respond: I do not agree with you. I do not think that trying to define Internet Abuse is behaving like an Ass. I do think that not defining Internet Abuse, if we are talking about Internet Abuse, and even if RIPE or an ISP or a Government is talking about Internet Abuse, is simply stupid. Regarding where we were at about the singular definition of Internet abuse, as it stood: it still stands. - You could reply to that still open thread? The rest of your diatribe: regarding Hetzner.de - The whole DMCA came about as a result of "Internet Abuse" - so abuse(a)hetzner.de has to enforce the German eq of DCMA - as Governments themselves are confused about what this "Internet Abuse" thing actually is. And, copyright etc is only one such example. There are many examples where other actions/crimes/etc are confused with "Internet Abuse" in fact, it has become so convenient that everything may simply be called "Internet Abuse" as it makes it so easy - it makes abuse@anywhere have to handle everything... Regarding status quo: but that does not have to be the case. Anyone that cares can agitate, push back and keep on pushing, pulling (even adding the odd bovanity (in reference to the abuse of bovines in general) anyway, I get your response(s) as well. and, for the record, Internet Abuse does not only/simply apply/relate to carrier grade internet abuse mitigation. - so yet another example of perspective and point of view... On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:33:20 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes Internet > > abuse > > That is painfully clear to me. > > Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the German > equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally classified as > internet abuse handling, that is a separate legal process that each > ISP handles per the advice of their legal team. > > It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set best > practice is evolving in that direction, but that is entirely moot in > this context. > > The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are related to > issues other than copyright infringement, on which there is broad > consensus in ISP acceptable use policy and national law. > > Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into banalities > about the minutiae of a catchall definition of internet abuse, let > alone agricultural metaphors, is, to use another such metaphor, > asinine. > > I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this group – not > since most every “internet name” in the RIPE region just happened to > be in the room during an AOB session to remove Richard Cox from his > role. > > There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status quo, and a > lot of fautuous arguments against it from several people with zero > background in carrier grade internet abuse mitigation (rather than > databases, whois, routing and such), and I get that. > > --srs > >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes Internet abuse That is painfully clear to me. Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the German equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally classified as internet abuse handling, that is a separate legal process that each ISP handles per the advice of their legal team. It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set best practice is evolving in that direction, but that is entirely moot in this context. The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are related to issues other than copyright infringement, on which there is broad consensus in ISP acceptable use policy and national law. Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into banalities about the minutiae of a catchall definition of internet abuse, let alone agricultural metaphors, is, to use another such metaphor, asinine. I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this group – not since most every “internet name” in the RIPE region just happened to be in the room during an AOB session to remove Richard Cox from his role. There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status quo, and a lot of fautuous arguments against it from several people with zero background in carrier grade internet abuse mitigation (rather than databases, whois, routing and such), and I get that. --srs

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

Can we please stick to debating facts instead of fautuous analogies based on transmogrifying animals? What I am seeing here is a weird set of justifications of inaction based on improbable corner cases. Actual cases related to abuse enforcement (anonymized would be fine) are going to be far better than cows or donkeys. On 04/10/16, 7:08 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:12:10 +0300 Sergey <gforgx(a)fotontel.ru> wrote: > Andre, that your cow is a donkey is purely your problem, not of the > others subscribed to the mailing list. Please tell us all why you are saying that? Are you a cyber criminal and it is in your best interests to not have a definition of abuse? or why? what is your agenda? > On 10/04/16 15:49, ox wrote: > > my cow is a donkey >

2 1